"For
the first time in history religious and spiritual leaders from the major religious
traditions and from all regions of the world met at the United Nations to pledge
themselves to work for peace." Commitment
to Global Peace

"...there have been well meaning...
calls for world government; calls which pointed to the
unfairness, inequality and injustice of the present
distributions of wealth, power and policy making." Introduction
to The
Charter for Global Democracysigned
at the Millennium Summit.

"As Permanent Members of the Security
Council, we will continue to fulfill our obligations under the Charter and
commit to making UN organization stronger and more effective."
Presidents
Clinton (USA), Putin (Russia), Zeming (China) and Chirac (France) and Prime Minister Blair
(UK), September 7, 2000. Statement
by the P-5 on the Millennium Summit.

The
two UN summits fit together. As in Nazi Germany, political success calls for
cooperative churches and
compromising pastors.[1]

Both Summits agreed to build a more
"efficient" United Nations. They wanted a standing UN army and a "reformed" Security Council
-- one unencumbered by the "gridlock" of a veto. Canadian
master-strategist Maurice Strong, who led the 1992 UN Conference
on Environment and Development, serves their joint goal well.

Mr. Strong, who now heads the UN's University of
Peace -- a
vital partner to the World Peace Summit -- is also in charge of UN
"reforms". His view of the needed reforms is no secret, for his leadership on the
strategic Commission on Global Governance
exposed some sobering plans. Its 1995 report, Our Global
Neighborhood,
outlined the agenda:

"This underlines
the need for a highly trained UN Volunteer Force that is willing,
if necessary, to take combat risks.... Such an international Volunteer Force would be under the exclusive
authority of the Security Council...." (page
110)

What if the US Congress disagrees with UN decisions. Could
it simply press for a US veto on the Security Council?
Not if Strong implements his vision of reform. The United States,
which has been billed 25% of the huge UN budget, would be dismissed
from the Security Council:

"We recommend that a new class of 'standing ' members be established....
Of these new members, two should be drawn from industrial countries
and three from among the larger developing countries. Of the
two from industrial countries, presumably one will be from Asia
and one from Europe. Of the three from developing countries, we would expect one each
to be drawn from Asia, Africa, and Latin America....

"The new standing members will not possess a veto, and we believe
the aim should be for the power of the veto to be phased out." (240-241)

Many Americans refuse to believe this could
happen. Others -- who like my family in Norway, saw nations shift from freedom to
Nazi tyranny overnight during World War II -- know well that massive social changes
always have and will be part of history.

It's tempting to think that the United Nations would save us from such devastations in the future. Instead, we
need to realize that the same human quest for power that drove Lenin and Hitler to
unthinkable ends, is now being centralized in a single government ruled by ambitious, compromising national leaders -- some in virtual
bondage to the World Bank and IMF.

Granting such powers to the UN would
mean that countless decisions affecting our lives and families will be made for us by
leaders who are not accountable to voters and cannot be removed from office.

So don't be deceived by the noble
sentiments. In spite of the grand promises, local
control and "decentralization" are outright lies! Everyone -- throughout the
world -- would have to live, think, participate and work according UN rules and standards
or face a potential intrusion by the UN-controlled forces.
And when that happens, you would have no place to hide. (See
Local Agenda
21)

Sheiks
and swamis, priests and patriarchs, moguls and medicine men.... From
around the world, they had gathered in New York on August 28 to join a
four-day dialogue on "unity among religions." This Millennium
World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual leaders would supposedly
thrust humanity toward a utopian oneness and peace on earth. But for
those who doubt the noble rhetoric, this meeting of minds raised some
sobering questions:

What kind of unity did these religious leaders envision?

What would the UN require of its spiritual leaders?

What did they have in common?

What kind of unity?

Not all spiritual leaders were welcome. The new
global "democracy" calls for worldwide representation -- but only by those
who conform to the UN vision of solidarity. Dissenting voices could cause conflict and
expose the lack of consensus. As Rabbi Arthur
Schneier, president of the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, said,

"We have to marginalize religious leaders who are
peace spoilers and are inciting hatred
and nationalistic passions, which destroys life.... We have a lot of those who
are out there who are not in sync, and who are seeking to undermine our peacemaking,
bridge-building efforts.''[2]

"Peace spoilers" include those who refuse
to conform to the UN vision of "Religion in a Culture of Peace." Biblical Christianity
would fit the label well, for the true followers of Christ cannot be "in
sync" with the world. They will not compromise their faith in order
to please the global village.

Since Ted Turner's Better World Fund paid most of the Summit
expenses, one would expect intolerance for God's truth. It's
no secret that the Summit's Honorary Chairman Turner has little love for Christianity.
In his Summit message, he described his spiritual search:

"The thing that disturbed me is that my
religious Christian sect was very intolerant... because it taught we were the only
ones going to heaven. It just confused the devil out of me because I said heaven is
going to be a might empty place with nobody else there.

The Dalai
Lama didn't fit either.
China would tolerate no public support for the exiled Tibetan Buddhist leader. Its
leaders had
voiced their disapproval, and the UN chose to violate its own principles rather than
offend the Communist giant.

What does the UN require of
its spiritual leaders?

The
UN's readiness to bow to Chinese demands caused both concern and consternation.
"While religion should not dictate politics, neither should politics dictate
faith,'' said Mustafa Ceric, the Grand Mufti of Bosnia and Herzegovina. "We have a very sorry experience from the Communist period, as well
as the most recent past, where politics has manipulated religion.''

It makes sense that history would repeat itself. In
spite of the tempting lies about human and spiritual evolution, human nature doesn't
change from century to century. June Griffin, who attended the Summit with support from
Congress, described the hypocrisy of those who proclaim lofty ideals but pursue
self-interest, power and prestige:

"Past agendas have failed, thus
religion is to be reintroduced into politics as the ultimate pressure. Over a thousand
religious leaders and spiritual heads of the poor nations came to the UN Religious
Peace Summit in their humblest limousines, SUV's and other means of western
accommodation, after having flown through the air on Yankee-invented airplanes. One
Hindu said he spent $20,000 to attend and still he couldn't get a place to speak. Not
all is well.

...

"The solemn ceremony was delayed 45
minutes because the emcee was unable to clear the first three rows for the speakers.
Either they didn't understand his "please empty the first three rows so that we
can get on with this historic event," or used it as a good excuse to retain the
best seats. He pleaded patiently for 45 minutes, I said, and in vain called an
interpreter, but alas, none moved. "Please turn off cell phones," but they
rang on. Seems Mother Earth's children don't mind very well."[4]

What did count was a public demonstration of
"unity in diversity." This "diversity" called for showy
but shallow distinctions between their various religions. Drums, feathers and
other outward symbols
helped hide the genuine ideological differences which had yielded to UN standards for
the new global "unity." In other words, peace pipes and distinguishing
robes were welcome. Unlike the Biblical cross, they didn't threaten the blueprint for
solidarity.

What did they have in common?

At
the close of the World Summit, the spiritual guides signed a "Commitment to Global Peace."
Together they would support the UN's quest for answers to "the pressing problems of conflict, poverty
and the environment." As in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Communist China,
compliant religious leaders would consent to a common UN-defined duty: to be used by
political strategists to persuade and manage the masses.

Ponder
some of the suggestions in this Commitment to Global Peace. As in most UN documents,
it highlights the crisis needed to justify the loss of freedom and the planned control.
Notice how it commits religious leaders (1) to accept its dubious presumptions, and (2) to use their influence to serve the UN agenda
for "sustainable development" -- establishing a socialist welfare system and
economic equality around the world under the banner of "saving the
environment."

"Whereas
our world is plagued by violence, war and destruction, which are sometimes perpetrated
in the name of religion....

"Whereas no individual, group or nation can any longer live as an isolated microcosm in
our interdependent world....

"Whereas
there can be no real peace until all groups and communities acknowledge the cultural
and religious diversity of the human family in a spirit of mutual respect and
understanding....

"In light of the above, and with a view to discharging our duty to the human family, we
declare our commitment and determination:

1. To collaborate with the United Nations and all men and women of goodwill locally,
regionally and globally in the pursuit of peace.....

2.
To lead humanity by word and deed in a renewed commitment to ethical and spiritual
values...

5. To awaken in all individuals and communities a sense of shared responsibility for
the well-being of the human family....

7. To educate our communities about the urgent need to care for the earth's ecological
systems....

The second
point -- "no individual... can any longer live as an isolated microcosm in our
interdependent world" -- is already being used in communities across the USA to
justify pressuring people of all ages to participate in the
consensus
process. The Columbine massacre and the new quest to identify "loners" as
potential criminals have intensified this pressure.

Remember,
the United Nations demands solidarity. Only
a new set of shared beliefs, values,
attitudes, and behaviors can complete its utopian vision of the global community. To
succeed, it needs the cooperation of spiritual leaders who will persuade their
followers.

Absolute
truth and political dissent are unacceptable. Uncompromising positions could bring conflict and gridlock. Our
Global Neighborhood suggests a
threefold approach to establishing “an ethical dimension to global governance.” Do
they sound familiar?

Encourage commitment to core values… and
strengthen the sense of common responsibility for the global neighborhood.

Express these values through a global ethic
of specific rights and responsibilities….

Embody this ethic in the evolving system of
international norms, adapting, where necessary existing norms of sovereignty….
(See Our Global Neighood)

This
"sense of common responsibility" was as vital to totalitarianism in Nazi
Germany and the Communist block as it is to the United Nations today. While the
responsibilities (or duties) were adapted to both real and artificial needs of the times, they served to focus
the masses on common quests.

Like
today's leading politicians, the Summit promised all kinds of rewards to those who would
bow to its reign. But its seductive promises hide unthinkable threats to
personal freedom and national sovereignty. Their purpose is socialist control, not
compassion. Hard to believe? Then look at the roots of the United
Nations.

Founded in 1945, the United Nations chose the communist spy
Alger
Hiss as its first, though temporary, Secretary-General.[5]
A Harvard law-school
graduate, he served as an advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt at the end of World
War II. While secretly functioning as a Soviet agent, Hiss worked with the forerunner to
the National Council of Churches to establish a
world government that fit
the Communist vision for socialist control. (See
Conforming the Church to the New Millennium)He didn't stay long at the helm of the organization he had helped found.
In
1946 he was elected president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and
was replaced by
Trygve
Lie, a Norwegian labor leader.

Trygve Lie had earlier
first been
nominated to preside over the General Assembly by Andrey A. Gromyko of the Soviet Union.
As Secretary-General in
1950, he urged that the UN admit the Communist People's Republic of China. But he
offended the Soviet Union by supporting
military intervention in the Korean War. From then on, he faced
its "official hindrance and personal insult."
Meanwhile, as a result of the McCarthy investigations against suspected Communists in the UN,
Lie's "secretariat was accused of giving jobs to disloyal U.S. citizens." None
of the charges were proven, but his authority suffered and he resigned in 1952.[6]

"Of the 17 individuals identified by the US State Department as
having helped shape US policy leading to the creation of the United Nations, all but
one were later identified as secret members of the Communist Party USA....

"... the ideological makeup of the UN’s leadership has been
constant. In its 54 year history all eight Secretary Generals of the UN have been
either dedicated socialists or communists, all 15 of the UN
Under-Secretary-Generals for Political and Security Council Affairs (the UN’s
military boss) have been communists (all but one from the Soviet Union/Russian
Federation), and two thirds of the membership in the General Assembly, the
Security Council, and in the World Court have always been representatives of socialist
and communist nations....

"Besides the scandal of having American communists Alger Hiss
and company as the creators of the UN, a 1952 official Senate investigation into the
then 6 year old United Nations revealed, 'extensive evidence indicating that there is
today in the UN among the American employees there, the greatest concentration of
Communists that this committee has ever encountered.' And these were high
officials." [7]

Words that, to many, bring a sense of security such as peace,
ethics, compassion, rights, democracy, security, and sovereignty become meaningless in
this context. Like Gorbachev's "Council of the Wise," the minds behind
the UN agenda are masters at deception. Having rejected Biblical and moral absolutes,
they are free to believe that the end they envision justifies any
unconscionable means.

1. We, the Heads of State and Government of the Member States of the United Nations,
have gathered... to reaffirm our faith in the Organization and its Charter as
indispensable foundations of a more peaceful, prosperous and just world.

Fact: It cancels
every Constitutional right we treasure in America. The UN offers no balance of powers, no
jury trial when accused..... (See Trading U.S. Rights for UN Rules)

2. We recognize that... we have a
collective responsibility to uphold the
principles of equality and equity at the global level....

Fact: If your lifestyle fails to meet the
UN's socialist standard for equality and equity you will face the consequences.

3. We reaffirm our commitment to the
purposes and principles of the United Nations
Charter, which have proved timeless and universal....

Fact: The UN Charter, as an international
treaty, could cancel our freedoms under the U.S. Constitution.

4. We believe that the
central challenge we face today is to ensure that
globalization becomes a positive force for all the world's people.... To be inclusive
and equitable, globalization requires broad and sustained effort to create a shared
future, based upon our common humanity in all its diversity....

Fact: This requires totalitarian training,
management and monitoring of human resources around the world. Today's teaching and
surveillance technology makes it possible to monitor compliance with the UN's politically
correct "mental health" (including community participation and willingness to
compromise) of each person and community.

The UN claims the
right to define the rules, manage the action, and monitor compliance on each of the
points below. The nice-sounding terms help win public consensus, but they hide an
agenda that opposes the freedom we treasure in America.

For example, "Equality" would end your family's right to choose
traditional gender roles for your home. "Tolerance" carries the duty to
participate in the (dialectic)
consensus
process, put aside contrary facts and absolutes, and join the unbiblical quest for "common
ground."

5. We consider certain fundamental values to be essential to international
relations in the 21st Century. These include:

Freedom:Men and women have the right to live
their lives and raise their children in dignity, free from hunger and from the fear
of violence, oppression or injustice. ...

Equality:No individual and no nation must be
denied the opportunity to benefit from development. The equal rights and opportunities
of women and men must be assured.

Solidarity:Global challenges must be managed
multilaterally, and in a way that shares the costs and burdens fairly in accordance
with the most basic principles of equity and social justice. ...

Tolerance:Human beings must respect each
other, in all their diversity.... Differences... should neither be feared nor
repressed, but cherished as a precious asset.... Dialogue among all civilizations
should be actively promoted.

Respect for nature:Prudence must be shown in
the management of all living species and natural resources, in accordance with the
precepts of sustainable development. ... The current unsustainable patterns of
production and consumption must be seriously addressed in the interest of our
future....

The next section is introduced in Article 6 as "the key
objectives to which we assign particular significance." It includes surrendering
legal rights such as a jury trial to the whims and inefficiencies of a UN Criminal Court
and to UN officials who
often despise everything America once valued.

II. Peace, Security and Disarmament

7. We will spare no effort to free our peoples from the scourge of war...

8. We resolve therefore:

To strengthen respect for the rule of law....
[i.e. the UN's international laws]

To enhance the effectiveness of the United Nations in the maintenance of peace and
security, by giving it the resources and the tools required to promote conflict
prevention, the peaceful resolution of disputes, post-conflict peace building and
reconstruction, and by strengthening the capacity of the Organization to conduct peace
keeping operations.

To take concerted action against the menaces of terrorism and drug trafficking....

To take concerted action to prevent the illegal traffic in small arms and light
weapons, especially by creating greater transparency in arms transfers....

To strive towards the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, particularly
nuclear weapons...

National sovereignty isn't mentioned here. However, the
Security
Council Declaration signed on September 7 "reaffirms
its commitment to the principles of... national sovereignty... and respect for human
rights and the rule of law." But, as in most UN treaties, there is
a catch. (See Trading U.S. Rights for UN Rules)

If, in the eyes of the UN, a nation violates the rules and principles of these treaties, they
would face UN disciplines. If, under the planned UN monitoring system, a person or nation fails
to carry out its UN-defined duties, it loses its rights. In this context, national
sovereignty becomes meaningless. The U.S. Constitution would no longer guard the nation against UN
legal or military interference.

For
example, the Declaration "Affirms its determination to
strengthen United Nations peacekeeping operations by:

"taking
steps to assist the United Nations to obtain trained and properly equipped personnel
for peacekeeping operations;"

"strengthening
consultations with troop contributing countries when deciding on such
operations;"

President Clinton and other national representatives have promised to
provide the resources needed to establish a UN militia capable of "rapid
deployment" that could interfere in civil matters within nations. In effect, they are
handing the UN the very tools it needs to destroy the freedom God once gave us.

In his Summit speech on September 6,
Bill
Clinton gave the kind
of ambiguous message we have learned to expect from our president. You may want to compare his Executive Order on
The Implementation of Human Rights treaties
with these nice-sounding words. They take on a different
meaning in the overall context:

"We find today fewer wars between nations, but more wars
within them. Such international conflicts, often driven by ethnic and religious differences,
took five million lives into the last decade.... These conflicts present us with a stark
challenge. Are they part of the scourge the UN was established to prevent? If so, we
must respect sovereignty.... but still find a way to protect people....

"We must provide those tools-- with peacekeepers that can be
rapidly deployed with the right training ad equipment, missions well defined and well
led, with the necessary civilian police."[8]

This UN militia may well be necessary to quell the
anger of the masses when they awaken to the true UN agenda. The
next section gives another glimpse of the plan. It would establish a socialist welfare
system for the people of the world -- funded primarily by U.S. taxpayers. Free enterprise, as
we have known it, would no longer exist:

III.
Development and Poverty Eradication

9. We will spare no effort to
free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and
dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty... fully
realizing the right to development and freedom from want.

10. We resolve, therefore, to
create an
enabling environment....

11. ... Internationally,
success depends on the existence of an open, equitable,
rule-based, predictable and non-discriminatory multilateral
trading system, which guarantees special and differential
treatment of developing countries....

12. We ... call on the
industrialized countries to: adopt... a policy of duty-free
and quota-free access for essentially all exports from the
least developed countries; to implement the enhanced program
of debt relief....

14. We resolve further: To
halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of the world's
people (currently 22 per cent) whose income is less than one
dollar a day....

15. We also resolve:

To ensure that the
benefits of new technologies, especially information
technology, are available to all.

To develop strong
partnerships with the private sector and civil society
organizations in pursuit of development and poverty
eradication.

The Summit called for
ratification of several treaties:

IV. Protecting our Common
Environment

16. We must spare no effort to free all of humanity... from the threat of living on a
planet irredeemably spoilt by human activities....

17.We resolve, therefore, to adopt in all our environmental actions a new ethic of
conservation and stewardship and, as first steps agree:

To adopt and ratify the Kyoto Protocol, so that it can enter into force no
later than 2002- 10 years after the Rio Conference, and 20 years after the first
United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and to begin the required reduction
of emissions of greenhouse gasses, especially in developed countries.

To press for the full implementation of the Convention of Biological Diversity
and the Convention to Combat Desertification.

To arrest the unsustainable exploitation of water resources....

To ensure free access to the information on the genetic code, since this belongs to
all humanity.

To better understand
the practical ramifications of the above treaties, click on these sites:

18. We will spare no effort to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as
well as the respect for all internationally recognized human rights and fundamental
freedoms, including the right to development.

19. We resolve, therefore:

To fully observe and uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

To press for more inclusive and participatory political processes in all of
countries.

To ensure the right of the media to perform its essential role of informing
the public, and the right of the public to receive ideas and information provided by
the media.

At the first glance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sounds good, as do
all
the intrusive UN human rights treaties. Article 18 upholds "the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion..." Article 19 affirms "the right to freedom of
opinion and expression... and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through
any media and regardless of frontiers."

But this basic end, Article 29 states that "these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised
contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." In other words, these
"rights" or "freedoms" don't apply to those who would criticize the UN
or its policies. Your rights would be conditioned on your compliance. Only if your message
supports official ideology are you free to speak it. As Andrei Vishinsky wrote in
The
Law of the Soviet State, "There can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and
so on for the foes of socialism."

VI. Protecting the Vulnerable

20. We will spare no effort to ensure that women and children and all civilian
populations who suffer disproportionately the consequences of natural disasters and armed
conflicts, are given every assistance and protection to regain normal life.

We resolve, therefore:

To combat violence against women in all its forms,

To encourage the ratification and full implementation of the
Convention of the
Rights on the Child....

Few
would disagree that we should "combat violence." But the word violence,
like countless others, has been redefined by the feminist movement. At
the 1995 UN Conference for Women in Beijing, it wasn't limited to the dictionary
definition: "the use of physical force so as to damage or injure."

[9]
Diane Knippers,
President
of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, gave some examples to show the new
usage:

23. We will spare no effort to make the United Nations a more
effective instrument
for pursuing all of these priorities; the fight against poverty, ignorance and disease;
the fight against injustice; the fight against violence, terror and crime; and the fight
against the degradation and destruction of our common home.

24. We resolve, therefore:

To restore the centrality and enhance the effectiveness of the
General Assembly as
the chief deliberative and representative organ of the United Nations.

To call for the speedy reform and enlargement of the Security Council, making it
more representative, effective and legitimate in the eyes of all the world's people.

To further strengthen the Economic and Social Council....

To give full opportunities to civil society, parliamentarians, the private sector and
other non-state actors to contribute to the achievement of the Organization's goals and
programs....

26. We solemnly reaffirm on this historic occasion that the United Nations in the
indispensable common house of the entire human family, and through which it will be able
to realize its universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development. We will
therefore pledge our unstinting support for the attainment of these common objectives.

The last part would ensure that every nation bows to UN duties and demands. It
establishes the power of the world government to enforce and punish those who refuse to conform. According to
key UN reports, the planned "reform and enlargement of the Security Council, making it
more representative, effective and legitimate..." would end the Security Council veto.
In other words, the USA, a Permanent Member, would lose the authority to block unwanted
UN projects. On the vital issues of sovereignty and UN control, the USA, as a minority member,
would be forced to yield to a majority of socialist and communist leaders.

Are you ready for this new world order? Are your children ready? Whatever
your answer, please
pray for God's mercy on America, for a change of heart in her leaders, for an awakening
of its people and churches, for
humble and watchful hearts in her children. Then equip your family with
His armor and
Truths.
Don't forget, if you belong to Him, this promise is for you:

"Be strong and courageous,
do not be afraid or tremble at them,

for the Lord our God is the One who goes with you.

He
will not fail you or forsake you." Deut. 31:6

Endnotes:

Maurice Strong. This powerful Canadian multi-billionaire founded both the World Economic Council
and Planetary Citizens. He has served as director of the World
Future Society, trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and Aspen
Institute, and is a member of the Club of Rome. As head of the Earth
Council, he began to prepare an Earth Chartera global code
of conduct based on global values and radical environmental guidelines.

Strong led the 1992 "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro
(United Nations Conference on Environment and Development). It
produced the controversial Biodiversity Treaty and
Agenda
21  the monstrous plan for reorganizing the world along
environmental guidelines. One of his offices is only two blocks
away from the White House.

Officially, Strong was "hired" by Annan to "reform"
the massive, inefficient, and corrupt UN bureaucracy so that
the US Congress would pay its dues. But his leadership brings
little comfort to those who remember Strongs occult and
environmental ties, globalist ambitions, and corrupt business
practices.

[1] The
World
Peace Summit's list of "strategic partnerships" starts with the UN University for Peace, "an international institution created
by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1980." It helps infuse the global
education system with psycho-social strategies for
conforming minds to the UN agenda. Started by
Robert
Muller,
former assistant Secretary General of the UN, the University of Peace is now led by Maurice
Strong.

[2] Gustav Niebuhr, "Religion's Many
Faces Meet in New York for Peace," The New York Times, 31 August 2000. Rabbi Arthur Schneier's Appeal of
Conscience Foundation "has worked on behalf of religious freedom, human
rights and peace throughout the world. This inter-religious coalition of business and
religious leaders promotes mutual understanding, tolerance and pluralism in many regions,
including the former Soviet Union, Central Europe, China, Cuba and the former
Yugoslavia." (See
http://www.millenniumpeacesummit.org/partner.html)

Our Global
Neighborhood,
the official report of The Commission Global Governance
(Oxford University Press, 1995), calls for (as does
Towards A Rapid Reaction Capability for the UN)
a more effective UN police force and an end to veto on Security Council.

But this more "efficient" world government would
operate by a consensus based on ethical solidarity -- everyone must conform to the new
global values and duties:

"The quality
of global governance will be determined by several factors. High among them is the broad
acceptance of a global civic ethic to guide action within the global neighborhood, and
courageous leadership infused with that ethic at all levels of society. Without a global
ethic, the fractions and tensions of living in the global neighborhood will multiply…

"The
most important change that people can make is to
change their way of looking at the world. We can change studies, jobs,
neighborhoods, even countries… and still remain much as we always were. But
change
our fundamental angle of vision and everything changes—our priorities, our values, our
judgments, our pursuits. Again and again, in the history of religion this total upheaval
in the imagination has marked the beginning of a new life, a turning of the heat… by
which men see with new eyes and understand with new minds and turn their energies to new
ways of living…

"In our rapidly changing world, the standards and restrains provided by
commonly
accepted values and norms become ever more essential. Without them, it will be hard—if
not impossible—to establish more effective and legitimate forms of global governance."
pages
46-47)